Johnson v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 June 1904 |
| Citation | 81 S.W. 1197 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Bell County; John M. Furman, Judge.
Action by Miss Ann Johnson against the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Pendleton & Ferguson, for appellant. J. W. Terry and A. H. Culwell, for appellee.
This is a personal injury suit, resulting in a verdict and judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff has appealed.
The defendant pleaded a settlement and release, to which the plaintiff responded, alleging that the release was procured by fraud, and that, at the time of the alleged settlement and release, her mind was so enfeebled that she did not comprehend what she was doing, and that the same was not binding upon her. Much evidence was introduced bearing upon both of the questions referred to, and, in the main charge of the court, both issues were submitted to the jury; but, at the request of the defendant, the court gave the following special instruction: "The jury is charged that, in determining whether or not the party is bound by the release executed by the plaintiff, it will only be necessary for you to determine whether or not the said plaintiff had the capacity to understand or to have explained to her the nature and effect of the said instrument she had executed; and if you find, at the time that said instrument was executed, the plaintiff had the capacity to understand or to have explained to her the nature and effect of said release, you will return a verdict for the defendant on this issue." This charge is complained of because it told the jury that the validity of the release depended solely upon the question of the plaintiff's mental capacity at the time it was executed, thereby eliminating the question of fraud in procuring the release. The objection is well founded, and requires a reversal of the judgment. It may be conceded that the main charge was correct, but it did not correct the error in the special charge complained of. Bruce v. Koch, Dreyfus & Co., 94 Tex. 192, 59 S. W. 540; Citizens' Railway Co. v. Mattie Sinclair (recently decided by this court) 81 S. W. 329, and cases there cited.
We also sustain appellant's contention that it was error for the court to instruct the jury, as it did in special charge No. 3 given at the request of the defendant, to the effect that mental incapacity should not be inferred from any enfeebled...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- North American Accident Ins. Co. v. Miller
-
Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. Lowrie
...was procured by fraud. International & G. N. R. Co. v. Shuford, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 251, 81 S. W. 1189, 1190; Johnson v. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co., 36 Tex. Civ. App. 487, 81 S. W. 1197. The evidence clearly established a permanent injury, and that the settlement was made through fraud and impos......
-
Vera v. North Star Dodge Sales, Inc., 04-96-00749-CV
...(Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1914, no writ) (party not mentally competent when in a semi-conscious state); Johnson v. Gulf, C. & S.F. Rwy.Co., 36 Tex.Civ.App. 487, 81 S.W. 1197, 1198 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1904, no writ) (party mentally ...
-
White v. Holland, (No. 9403.)
...announce the rule as adopted by our decisions. First Natl. Bank v. McGinty, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 539, 69 S. W. 495; Johnson v. Railway Co., 36 Tex. Civ. App. 487, 81 S. W. 1197. We conclude that judgment as between the plaintiff and the defendant G. A. Holland should be reversed, and the cause......